**Write a 100-word reply to the 4 individual questions below.**
To help you with your discussion, please consider the following questions:
- What clarification do you need regarding the posting?
- What differences or similarities do you see between your posting and other classmates’ postings?
- What additional questions do you have after reading the posting?
- What item you found to be compelling and enlightening.
1.Katrina- In my opinion the court decision is warranted because, doctors are not obligated to disclose to patients “miracle treatments” or any drug or treatment not yet approved by the FDA. Now there are cases where FDA approved drugs have been used in specific treatments that isn’t approved for that particular drug this is called “off label drugs”. The use of non-FDA approve medicines increases the physician chance of medical malpractice liability. These particular drugs and/or treatment were illegal and not approved by the FDA in the patient state of resident for a reason. Non-FDA approved prescription drugs may present a significant threat to individuals seeking care since these drugs most certainly has not endured evaluation by the FDA for “safety, effectiveness or quality” (FDA.gov). If the FDA did not evaluate drugs, there wouldn’t be any means to determine if these medicines are harmless and beneficial for use. The FDA also evaluates to make certain that prescription drugs are formulated in a way that the drug quality is consistent and if the drugs label is absolute and accurate. FDA unapproved drugs have ensued in injury to the patient. The FDA focus on protecting patients from the injuries associated with non-approved drugs. These standards are put in place to protect both the patient and the physician.
The treating physician need not to be held accountable for not advising patients of treatment options that are illegal or not successfully proven because, technically these treatment options are not available to the patient. The informed consent doctrine requires the physician to inform the patient of the benefits, inherent, material risks, and alternatives of a medical intervention. “The doctrine of informed consent is the legal basis for informed consent and is usually outlined in a state’s medical practice acts” (Judson, K 2020). Informed consent entails the patient’s right to receive all pertinent information in relation to the condition and then to make a decision regarding treatment based on that knowledge. (Judson, K 2020). The informed consent doctrine does not include disclosure for illegal treatments or illegal prescription drugs. “The physician’s obligation is to give medical facts accurately to the patient and to make recommendations for management in accordance with good medical practice” (AMA 2010). Disclosing illegal treatment options or even illegal prescription drugs do not fall under good medical practices and the physician should not be held responsible for not disclosing this information to the patients.
In my own opinion toward this case, the court’s judgment does not really appear to be justified. That is because the doctor informed the woman about the chemotherapy negative effects and cautioned her that her IQ would be permanently damaged. The woman on the other hand, elected to go forward with the procedure. The patient’s claims are unjustifiable because the medicine, as the woman recently discovered, it unlawful in her state and is not even being approved by the FDA. It would have been prohibited to inform the patient of this. The doctor’s only responsibility is to inform the woman about all the available therapies that have been demonstrated to work and have been approved by the FDA. That’s because if a doctor advises a patient about an unlawful therapy, the doctor will be held accountable for deceiving the patient if the patient tries it and something bad happens to them. As a result, the doctor is prohibited from informing the patients about unapproved therapy options. In the aforesaid case the court wasn’t really warranted in issuing a summary judgment since the doctor had the authority not to tell the patient about the alternative treatment options that were not legal. Instead of giving a summary judgment the doctor has right to be heard and have his reasons considered. All patient and doctor have a constitutional protection that should be protected; thus, the court should hear both parties prior to making a decision.
3. Jessy Lee
Patient’s Bill of Rights
The Patients’ Bill of Rights have evolved over the years, especially after the enactment of the Accountable Care Act in 2010. With this enactment, patients became increasingly aware of their rights in receiving proper care/information as well as knowing their role in the process of healthcare delivery. These “rights” allow for improved patient-provider communication and overall relationship. It assists the patient to know what to expect from their healthcare providers/insurance as well as what is expected of the patient from the provider as well. I see this as a mutual exchange of information and collaboration between the two parties. Currently, there is no universal bill of rights, although the original version of this was created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services shortly after the Accountable Care Act (M.U.S.E, Patient’s Bill of Rights). I thought it was interesting to learn that according to M.U.S.E, Rights in Ethical and Legal Disclosures, “bills of patient rights have no legal impact; rather they set an ethical tone for an HCO’s relationship with those it serves.” It is with this ethical manner, that patients have a right to considerate and respectful care, acknowledging one’s “cultural, psychosocial, and spiritual values” and following through with those preferences.
The Joint Commission has a brochure called “Speak Up” which has an extensive checklist of patient’s “rights” and “your role in your healthcare.” Based on my research, they all have similar themes and rights such as: being informed of one’s care and consenting or refusing to such care/treatment, maintaining confidentiality and keeping medical records private/secure, receiving discrimination-free care, making decisions about End-of-Life Care, accessing various patient support services if you have an impairment in vision, speech, hearing, or mental capacity (jointcommission.org). This also includes being educated on available financial resources and knowing an estimation of charges prior to treatment with an explanation of said charges if requested. Finally, expressing complaints if the above rights appear to have been violated. There certainly more bill of rights we can include here but these are some of the main ones.
On the other hand, the patient’s bill of rights also includes the active role of the patient and his/her responsibilities. For example, disclosing all medical and family history in order for the provider to render a diagnosis/treatment, being honest and courteous, ask questions if you need clarification, use healthcare services appropriately as well as keeping/cancelling appointments in a timely manner, and being attentive to instructions that are provided by the physician/clinician. There are more we can add to this list but this is a good basis of the important role a patient has in their own health care delivery process.
In summary, I believe these bills of rights are definitely necessary in helping patients receive the best outcome for their health care. Both the patients’ rights as well as what is expected of them, helps with communication, trust, and cooperation in the patient-provider relationship. It also allows the healthcare organization to continue to build patient satisfaction with the community they serve. The patient’s bill or rights is a win-win for all involved in delivering healthcare and will minimize possible complaints and lawsuits.
The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) is simply documentation which informs patients about the details on how they can anticipate being managed at their healthcare visits. This documentation is not legally binding. This document simply supplies patients with intent and expectancy for their treatment. The “Patient’s Bills of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) not long ago changed its name to the “Patient Care Partnership” (Bedolla, M. 2016). The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) was invented by the “American Hospital Association” (Bedolla, M. 2016) in 1970’s and amended in 1990’s. A short time ago the “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) got a crucial revamping from “Obamacare” (Bedolla, M. 2016). The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) provides protection to patients by expressing what resources are required to be presented and accessible to you and being provided honest and trustworthy healthcare. The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) also gives the patient options, this simply refers to the fact that you have the freedom to ultimately have the final decision about your healthcare.
The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) is necessary because, it grants the patient added authority over their health maintenance. It prohibits medical indemnity companies from restricting medical care and coming betwixt doctor and patient. A few “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) most outstanding features are healthcare companies cannot deny coverage to a patient with pre-existing conditions. Healthcare companies cannot withdraw a patient’s healthcare coverage in case of sickness. Healthcare companies cannot place a limitation on a patient’s lifetime limits or their annual healthcare coverage limits. Patients have the choice to select any PCP or Pediatrician within network. Females have the option to visit any obstetrician or gynecologist within the network without the need of referrals. Pre-approvals are not needed from the health insurance company to receive emergency treatment at healthcare facilities not within network. Obamacare place patients in control about their personal medical care. Bounded by legislation the “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) hand patients’ strength as well as versatility which is needed to produce advised decisions about their healthcare.
In regard to the universal “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) if it did exist, in my opinion no provisions needs to be added. Being universal and prohibits to everyone worldwide is the only thing the patient’s bill of right is missing. Overall, the “Patient’s Bill of Rights” (MUSE. 2021) is a great addition to the healthcare industry. Something more added for the protection of the patient and to provide better healthcare. To assist patients in feeling more optimistic about the healthcare structure and to ensure healthcare meets the patient’s necessities. It also provides the patients an outlet to communicate issues without hesitation.